How Builders FirstSource Pays

Frontline and professional ladder — BFS-1 through BFS-4

Management and P&L ladder — BFS-5 through BFS-8

Leadership ladder — BFS-9 through BFS-10

Disclosed executive layer

Track divergence

Hierarchy qualifications and legacy structures

• The catalogue is cross-functional by design. It normalizes a manufacturing, distribution, sales and corporate population into one comparison scale, so a BFS-6 in corporate technology and a BFS-6 in operations can carry very different market pay.
• The mapping is most reliable for hourly and frontline roles, where job postings and wage datasets cover many vacancies, and least reliable for corporate technology, where two posted requisitions sit far above the operations roles nominally at the same level.
• Executive rows are defined by SEC reporting obligations rather than by an internal grade. Named executive officer status is a disclosure category, not a band.
• The January 2021 all-stock combination with BMC Stock Holdings left legacy titles and assumed award plans behind, and no public document explains a formal post-merger band harmonisation.
• BFS-11 and BFS-12 are deliberately excluded from the priced ladder because they are national proxy disclosures rather than city-priced roles; they are carried in the executive section instead.

Peer-level mapping

Office and market catalogue — calibration factors versus Irving / Dallas

The company reports total locations and total employees, not city-level headcount, so this catalogue does not rank markets by employee count. Irving and Dallas is the corporate headquarters while operational employees are distributed across hundreds of yards, manufacturing plants and distribution sites. Company web pages have shown about 565 locations against the 10-K figure of about 585, which likely reflects consolidation after the fiscal year end.

Irving / Dallas anchor medians — the basis of every modeled cell

• The Irving and Dallas column is the anchor and the corporate headquarters. Its band medians come from hourly wage observations at BFS-1 to BFS-3, job-posting and employee-reported estimates at BFS-4 to BFS-9, and an employer-posted Area Vice President range at BFS-10.
• City factors are flat across the ladder because no level-dependent geographic schedule is published. A Seattle assembler and a Seattle regional director both carry the same 1.16 multiplier in this model.
• The multiplier range is narrow by technology-sector standards, running from 0.97 in Orlando to 1.20 in Los Angeles, which reflects a domestic operating footprint rather than an onshore and offshore delivery split.
• Los Angeles is the only factor with a direct employer anchor behind it: a posted Area Vice President requisition at $200,000 to $250,000 base against the $200,000 to $400,000 Dallas BFS-10 band.
• Executive compensation is national. The named executive officer and director figures in this report are proxy actuals and are deliberately kept out of the priced ladder so that no city factor is ever applied to them.

Executive incentive targets — percent of salary

Named-executive outcomes

• Simple 2014 Plan utilisation was about 53.1 percent at 31 December 2025, calculated as 15.1 million reserved less 7.1 million available. That measures committed capacity and is not the same as outstanding awards or dilution.
• Unrecognised compensation cost was about $72 million at the FY2025 close, expected to be recognised over roughly two years.
• FY2025 stock compensation expense of $53.512 million was down from $63.111 million in FY2024, consistent with lower grant values and a weaker performance-award outlook.
• The 2026 Plan reserve is reported two different ways. The Form S-8 registers 3.55 million shares while the Q2 Form 10-Q rounds to 3.6 million and then applies reductions for interim 2014 Plan grants. Both figures are reported here rather than reconciled into one.

Equity plan capacity and 2025 grant activity

Vesting — common reported employee schedule

Time-based restricted stock units for current officer grants generally vest in three equal annual instalments, and the March 2026 and July 2026 Forms 4 show exactly that pattern with one third on each anniversary. Some historical awards used two-year or four-year schedules. Performance awards typically cliff vest after a three-year performance period, and the disclosed central metric is return on invested capital with a relative total shareholder return modifier, paying 0 to 200 percent with a further plus or minus 10 percent adjustment depending on the grant design. Non-employee director restricted stock units vest in approximately one year. Change-in-control treatment emphasises a double trigger rather than automatic acceleration, and all awards are subject to the company recoupment policy and applicable listing rules.

Eligibility by hierarchy level

• No recurring equity was located for BFS-1 through BFS-5. Employees at those levels may participate in the employee stock purchase plan subject to eligibility, and any award grant would have to be specially approved.
• Equity first becomes plausible around BFS-6 for selected key employees, but the company does not publish a minimum eligible grade, a grant matrix or any automatic entitlement, so eligibility there is a low to medium confidence inference rather than a disclosure.
• At BFS-8 and BFS-9 the bundle offers illustrative grant sizes of $25,000 to $100,000 and $50,000 to $250,000 respectively. Those are planning illustrations, not a disclosed policy, and they are deliberately excluded from the priced band table.
• Equity becomes a material element at BFS-10 and above. Forms 4 for officers and division presidents show three-year time-vesting restricted stock units, and the named executive design is generally about 50 percent time-based restricted stock units and 50 percent performance awards.
• Assumed awards under the BMC 2013 Plan and the older 1998, 2005 and 2007 plans preserve value for their existing holders only. They should never be counted as parallel open pools available to the current workforce.

Indicative annual grant value by band — Irving / Dallas

Annualized planning value (±25%), not the face value of every new-hire grant. Share equivalents use the $69.36 reference price at 25 August 2026 23:15 UTC and ignore plan valuation rules and PSU performance. Highlighted rows are disclosed grant-date stock awards.

Named executive target equity

Three of the five named executives are reported in the available proxy transcription with aggregate cash rather than a salary and incentive split, so their salary rows are shown as zero and the whole cash amount sits in the incentive column. That is a transcription limitation, not a statement that those executives were unsalaried. The chief executive's own award of $549,762 works out at about 40.7 percent of a 135 percent target against a 36.7 percent programme outcome, which indicates an individual performance component on top of the company scorecard.

Board compensation framework

Actual FY2025 totals differ by leadership role, committee assignment and partial-year service, so the published policy retainers do not add up to any individual director's disclosed total. The two outliers, Paul S. Levy as board chair and Dave E. Rush as a director and former chief executive, reflect chair and transition responsibilities rather than a different award schedule.

Not publicly disclosed

Modeled promotion planning timeline

Overtime and shift differentials are role and location dependent with no enterprise schedule published, which matters more here than at a salaried employer because so much of the population is hourly. The one visible timing signal in the whole progression picture is on the equity side: the annual officer grant cycle lands in mid-March, the director cycle on the May annual meeting date, and a second division-president grant appeared in mid-July 2026.

Dataset summary

City-level H-1B wage history

All-years aggregates. P25/P75 are rounded reconstruction values marked modeled; medians and record counts are the stronger fields.

Selected title / worksite records

Evidence classification

Explicit “Not publicly disclosed” index

Known gaps and diligence before relying on a cell

1. 1BFS-11 and BFS-12 are deliberately excluded from the priced band table. They are national proxy disclosures, the bundle itself omits them from every city table, and carrying them as bands would let a city factor multiply a single worldwide chief executive figure. They are carried in the executive section instead, and the ladder therefore runs BFS-1 through BFS-10 with seniority 1 to 10.
2. 2The source bundle's total compensation column folded a notional benefits allowance into every band. That is employer cost rather than pay, so it has been stripped and every total here is rebuilt as base plus target variable plus annualized equity. The effect is small at the top and largest at BFS-1, where the bundle's $39,000 total becomes $38,190.
3. 3BFS-8 and BFS-9 totals were rounded in the bundle to $180,000 and $220,000, which sits slightly below and slightly above base plus target variable respectively. Both rows are rebuilt from components here, giving $183,000 and $222,250.
4. 4Equity is recorded as zero for BFS-1 through BFS-9. That is a genuine absence of evidence for a recurring grant, not a statement that no employee at those levels ever receives an award; the bundle's illustrative $25,000 to $100,000 and $50,000 to $250,000 figures for BFS-8 and BFS-9 are explicitly not a disclosed policy and are kept out of the priced table.
5. 5City factors are flat across the ladder and no baseFactorTop or totalFactorTop is set, because the bundle applies one multiplier per city to every band and no level-dependent geographic schedule is published anywhere.
6. 6The 2026 Plan share reserve is reported two ways. The Form S-8 registers 3.55 million shares while the Q2 Form 10-Q rounds to 3.6 million and applies reductions for interim 2014 Plan grants. Both are stated rather than reconciled.
7. 7Location count conflicts between sources: company web pages have shown about 565 while the FY2025 Form 10-K reports about 585. The audited 10-K figure is used as the report-date baseline and the web figure is treated as later consolidation.
8. 8Three of the five named executives are reported with aggregate cash only, so their salary rows are zero and the whole cash amount sits in the incentive column. No salary and incentive split is invented for them.
9. 9The chief executive pay-ratio figure of $8,153,385 differs from the $8,133,324 Summary Compensation Table total. That is an SEC pay-ratio calculation difference and both figures are stated separately.
10. 10The 2024 named-executive incentive outcome is not reproduced in the accessible source set, so the payout history shown here jumps from 199.6 percent in 2023 to 36.7 percent in 2025.
11. 11Salary aggregators disagree by construction. Zippia puts the broad workforce average at $38,138 while PayScale puts the company average base at $65,040, on different samples and definitions. They are reported separately rather than averaged together.
12. 12The company discloses no geographic revenue split, so no regional revenue panel appears in this report.
13. 13No enterprise-wide salary freeze, salary cut or campus offer revision was located in any reviewed source, and attrition is not disclosed at all.

Source register — 15 sources

Headcount fell by roughly 1,000 people, or about 3 percent, over the year while net sales fell to about $15.2 billion and both 2026 quarters declined further. The company does not disclose attrition at any level of aggregation and does not publish city-level headcount, so the only geographic signal in the filings is the location count by state. No enterprise-wide salary freeze or salary cut announcement was located in any reviewed source, although 2026 filings describe lower wages from cost-saving actions alongside lower variable compensation.